Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here.
So, honestly... is anyone surprised THE INVASION doesn’t work?
I’m not blaming anyone. I think sometimes, a certain percentage of the time for any studio, no matter how good they are at what they do... sometimes, you make a bad film. Not an awful film, which can be worth watching. But a disappointing film. A film that just doesn’t work. And I’m sure it was clear to all involved pretty much all the way through this one. There are ideas in this film that hint at an interesting interpretation. Clever gags. Definite signs of artistic life, but sewn together with some cookie cutter Hollywood sound and fury that feels completely artificial and grafted on... because it was.
I don’t think that reshoots are the reason the film doesn’t work. I don’t think this is a case of a brilliant movie getting ruined by studio interference. The reshoots are just the particular way this one went south.
Step one of the mistake was remaking INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS again. I mean... I get it, okay? The source material is solid. Jack Finney was a damn fine writer, and the first film adaptation in the ‘50s is a classic of a certain era and style. The ’78 film is pretty gotdamn groovy in its own right. Abel Ferrara’s film works. It’s a more straightforward horror film in many ways, but with just enough personal signature that it’s essential Ferrara.
It’s sort of amazing that three good films were all made based on the source material because each of them bent the metaphor to apply to something different. In the ‘50s, Don Siegel’s film was about communists. The Phil Kaufman film seems to be riffing off of EST and other feel-good philosophies of the time. Abel Ferrara’s fear of the military mindset and his mistrust of anyone who is indoctrinated seems to drive the ‘90s version of the story.
There’s really no reason to throw another interpretation on the stack short of a brilliant reinvention, and even in the purest version of the script that Dave Kajganich or the film that Oliver Hirschbiegel set out to make, I’m not sure the central metaphor ever snapped into focus. There’s a scene with Roger Rees at a dinner party early on where the “big idea” of the film is laid out as overtly as possible.
Unfortunately, that “big idea” is then softpedaled so much that by the end of the film, when Rees’s dialogue is brought back as a voice-over to remind us of EXACTLY what the film is supposed to be about, all it does is clearly indicate just how much the movie misses the mark. And oddly, the “big idea” really doesn’t play into the body snatchers metaphor at all. Basically, Rees takes the position that civilization is a very thin veneer over our real natures, and that in the right circumstances, all of us are capable of the most extreme and unfathomable actions. Basically, Hirschbiegel covered this same ground in DAS EXPERIMENT, and more successfully. Here, after setting up that idea, the film turns out to be curiously gutless. Nicole Kidman’s such a big movie star, and so acutely aware of her image, that she never really does anything unspeakable or extreme. Imagine a movie where you introduce a character with a kid and you put them in sincere danger together. Imagine a film where those stakes matter. Because that... is not this film. Without giving it all away, I’ll just say that they end up making things really easy for Kidman and her son. Anything even slightly unpleasant that Kidman has to do, they make sure it’s handled discretely and it’s never really a question. She only shoots the bad guys, after all, in classic Hollywood fashion. I mean, they don’t really address the fact that we learn later that the process can be reversed, which means she’s a murderer. That’s sort of glossed right over. Talk about an overreaction. People get a little complacent, and you feel the need to shoot a bunch of them just because you haven’t slept for 70-something hours thanks to the drugs you’re constantly taking? Yeah... sounds like the classic hero’s journey to me.
It’s strange to see a film where the little background touches are more interesting and more thought-out than the actual main story. The idea of a world where peace is accomplished through alien conformity has some bite to it, and as you watch the headlines of a world coming together rather than falling apart, it does test your sympathies. Especially since there’s not a single likeable character in the film. I never found myself rooting for Kidman or her son because the film never bothered to make them interesting or create any empathy for them.
I don’t know... I don’t think it’s just me who is burned out on this particular story being retold.
This is a perfect example of what happens when creative bankruptcy smashes into corporate indifference. This is a “studio movie” in every sense of the term, plastic and pointless and without any passion at all. I’d rather see a truly terrible film than something this dull, and even trying to parse the film as an attack on Scientology wasn’t enough fun to keep me engaged.
If you miss this one completely, you’re not missing a thing. Now I’m off to work on reviews for films I actually loved as well as more set reports and other goodies for you guys. I may be taking off on vacation this week, but I’ll still be checking in for plenty of updates.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
